“You avoided my response on sacrifice as a principal canon of Christianity, eg. “Isn’t Christianity all about Christ’s self-sacrifice for humanity? The sacrifice of One for the many so to speak.”
I didn’t avoid it. It just never occurred to me that you were actually advancing such an, umm, theologically unsophisticated argument.
“Wasn’t this the ultimate human sacrifice that implicitly obviates all further human sacrifice?”
Saints preserve us. If it was a “human sacrifice,” then Jesus was a madman and all of Christianity is false.
The whole point is that God Himself, one Person of the Trinity, chose to become both fully man and fully God, and to repair the breach man had created between himself and God. Killing Jesus the man was insignificant. It is the Passion and Death of Jesus Christ, our Lord and our God that matters.
“Actually I believe that religion fills an important need in humans when they consider their position in the immensity of the universe and look over into the abyss. As such, most relgions are good rather than bad.”
I see.
“And don’t you really think that all religions are only a matter of faith, and that faith is irrational?”
“Considering the above, I think its very rational to have religions although the forms that relgion sometimes takes to fulfill human need are irrational. Those irrational forms and rituals require faith above all, but I don’t fault those who profess them.”
So, do you reject the notion that God actually communicates with people, and that some religions are actually based on the content of those communications?
“I just don’t want them to require me to profess them as well.”
Luckily, you live in a country established by God as a Christian country, and Christianity regards forced conversions as an oxymoron.
You wrote”So, do you reject the notion that God actually communicates with people, and that some religions are actually based on the content of those communications?”
If you posit an all-powerful monothesistic God—and it must be monotheistic or it wouldn’t be all powerful—then God could easily and simultaneously talk to all humans or select among them. Why SHE would choose the latter course instead of the former, or give only Delphic clues to be interpreted by humans is puzzling as it leads to schisms, sects, and false prophets, no?
you wrote: “The whole point is that God Himself, one Person of the Trinity, chose to become both fully man and fully God”
You forgot to add that it was only in the 4th century after the Virgin Birth, and after the relatively recent adoption of the non-contemporarily written books of the New Testament, that God became officially recognized as Tri-partite. This addition to official doctrine was principally elaborated by St. Augustine using the logic invented by pagan philosophers without anyone claiming a personal communication from God as far as I know.
Look, I’m not trying to denigrate your faith in certain dogmas of the Christian religion. I respect your faith in them, all the moreso BECAUSE I can’t accept what appear to me to be later man-made attempts to mold dogma to suit perceived inherent contradictions or the adoption of canons of faith such as the Virgin Birth or your more secular declarations that the United States was established by God as a Christian country.
I apolgize for tweaking you on some issues, but you made some uncalled for ad hominem attacks on me, calling me ignorant simply because I disagree with your opinion and beliefs. I tried mightily not to respond in kind.
Let’s end this discussion and go our own way with a small, and hopefully better, understanding of each others faith, reason, and the human heart.